Nobody's stopping you from finding a job at a workplace without a union. But if you CHOOSE to work at a union shop, you accept the responsibilities that come with it. If you just want the benefits and wages the unions negotiate for without actually working for them, you're...well, a typical lazy, entitled Republican.

The legislation exempts firefighters and police officers but not schoolteachers. This is because firefighters and police officers are vital to society. Teachers are not. Let them scream and holler. That's all they ever do anyway. Firefighters rush into burning buildings. Police officers venture into dangerous areas most of us never know. These people risk death every day. If they strike, society risks breaking down.

Nobody's stopping you from finding a job at a workplace without a union. But if you CHOOSE to work at a union shop, you accept the responsibilities that come with it. If you just want the benefits and wages the unions negotiate for without actually working for them, you're...well, a typical lazy, entitled Republican.

Nobody's stopping you from finding a job at a workplace without a union. But if you CHOOSE to work at a union shop, you accept the responsibilities that come with it. If you just want the benefits and wages the unions negotiate for without actually working for them, you're...well, a typical lazy, entitled Republican.

Bet you whine about poor people being 'leeches', too.

Ahem. "Projection"

Ahem, "you're not being clever".

I have two uncles who own their own business and a big part of that was because when they were damn near destitute children of WWII refugees, they got union jobs that offered them a decent living and got their back, helped them to find training, etc. Both of them are incredibly successful now, and while they worked like no other they would be the first to tell you that being part of the union made sure that they got a decent wage for that incredible amount of work they were doing. And because they weren't living paycheck to paycheck for the skilled trades they had learned, they could both save and start their own business and (gasp) become - job creators.

Nobody's stopping you from finding a job at a workplace without a union. But if you CHOOSE to work at a union shop, you accept the responsibilities that come with it. If you just want the benefits and wages the unions negotiate for without actually working for them, you're...well, a typical lazy, entitled Republican.

Bet you whine about poor people being 'leeches', too.

Ahem. "Projection"

How is it projection? If you get better wages/benefits when a union negotiates them, but do not contribute to the union, how are you not leeching off the union?

r1chard3:They need the cops on the job to bust open the heads of the other groups that protest. The firemen are needed to put out any post riot fires.

We can't bust heads like we used to. But we have our ways. One trick is to tell stories that don't go anywhere. Like the time I caught the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for m'shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt. Which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. Gimme five bees for a quarter, you'd say. Now where was I... oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion tied to my belt, which was the style at the time. You couldn't get white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

Fista-Phobia: The legislation exempts firefighters and police officers but not schoolteachers. This is because firefighters and police officers are vital to society. Teachers are not. Let them scream and holler. That's all they ever do anyway. Firefighters rush into burning buildings. Police officers venture into dangerous areas most of us never know. These people risk death every day. If they strike, society risks breaking down.

[www.progressohio.org image 400x384]

---------------------------

I think the long term calamity of not educating our kids is far worse than whatever you are implying would happen if police and firemen got paid like any other worker should be paid, according to you.

Nobody's stopping you from finding a job at a workplace without a union. But if you CHOOSE to work at a union shop, you accept the responsibilities that come with it. If you just want the benefits and wages the unions negotiate for without actually working for them, you're...well, a typical lazy, entitled Republican.

Bet you whine about poor people being 'leeches', too.

Ahem. "Projection"

Ahem, "you're not being clever".

I have two uncles who own their own business and a big part of that was because when they were damn near destitute children of WWII refugees, they got union jobs that offered them a decent living and got their back, helped them to find training, etc. Both of them are incredibly successful now, and while they worked like no other they would be the first to tell you that being part of the union made sure that they got a decent wage for that incredible amount of work they were doing. And because they weren't living paycheck to paycheck for the skilled trades they had learned, they could both save and start their own business and (gasp) become - job creators.

Insatiable Jesus:Fista-Phobia: The legislation exempts firefighters and police officers but not schoolteachers. This is because firefighters and police officers are vital to society. Teachers are not. Let them scream and holler. That's all they ever do anyway. Firefighters rush into burning buildings. Police officers venture into dangerous areas most of us never know. These people risk death every day. If they strike, society risks breaking down.

[www.progressohio.org image 400x384]

---------------------------

I think the long term calamity of not educating our kids is far worse than whatever you are implying would happen if police and firemen got paid like any other worker should be paid, according to you.

Some animals are more equal than others.

Agreed. I was commenting on How Kasich went all in and lost and that future state laws will exempt the police and firefighters to extend that fresh, anti-socialist scent.

Nobody's stopping you from finding a job at a workplace without a union. But if you CHOOSE to work at a union shop, you accept the responsibilities that come with it. If you just want the benefits and wages the unions negotiate for without actually working for them, you're...well, a typical lazy, entitled Republican.

Bet you whine about poor people being 'leeches', too.

Ahem. "Projection"

Ahem, "you're not being clever".

I have two uncles who own their own business and a big part of that was because when they were damn near destitute children of WWII refugees, they got union jobs that offered them a decent living and got their back, helped them to find training, etc. Both of them are incredibly successful now, and while they worked like no other they would be the first to tell you that being part of the union made sure that they got a decent wage for that incredible amount of work they were doing. And because they weren't living paycheck to paycheck for the skilled trades they had learned, they could both save and start their own business and (gasp) become - job creators.

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 512x384]

/pic lgt video

Nice story. Irrelevant.

Considering I live in Michigan with a cowardly legislature who very shadily passed this crap,

considering my grandfather worked through incredibly hazardous conditions before joining strikes to collectively fight for the right to be treated like a human being and not just a intangible asset,

considering my uncles and nearly all my extended family save one still live in the state their parents or grandparents found a better life in in a large part due to unions,

considering despite the fact that my uncles have moved from being poor to incredibly successful but who both still hire union workers because even if it might cost more in the short term it's worth it in the long

Lsherm:LordJiro: Lsherm: Notabunny: badhatharry: They are vital. Their forced union membership is not.

Nobody is forced to join a union.

No, but in a closed shop you're forced to pay for the union. Don't pretend otherwise.

And who's forcing you to work at a closed shop? Answer: Nobody. You CHOOSE to work at a union shop, you accept the responsibilities.

Fair enough, I guess that's why they keep disappearing.

Hold on to the past, it's a good way of moving towards the future.

You'd better pray unions don't disappear. Unless, of course, you thought the Industrial revolution seemed like a fun time. Or maybe you read about feudal Europe, and thought being a serf sounded awesome? Maybe it's simpler...you just look at China, and say "Hey, I want to work there, but immigrating is too much of a pain in the ass!"

Because if the unions go, big business will have no opposition in this country. And all the progress we've made will be rolled back in no time.

I think Snyder will probably win a second term (kinda felt that way anyway, and Lessenberry has pushed me more firmly in that camp) but before this crap I was the devil's advocate with my coworker that hated him. Yeah, he did sign some crappy legislation, yeah, I can see how you don't agree with this or that. But compared to Walker (or Engler, for that matter) he was okay and not blatantly bought out. Plus he fought against Matty Moroun, which gave Synder an incredible amount of goodwill in my book.

Which is now gone. It would have been different if he hadn't been - not anti Right To Work, but pro Let's Not Pass Right To Work And Work To Unite The State Instead - for a long while. Whatever reasons he's given for the about-face, absolutely none of them so far have won me over.

And if the Republicans were dead set on passing this and Snyder for whatever reason had changed his opinion and felt it was important, or maybe felt that he couldn't stop the momentum so might as well sign it, there were far better ways to do it. People I know who were iffy on whether Right To Work was a good thing or not are still blown away by how quickly and not-above-board it was passed here. And the (eh, five or so) I've talked to since it was a done deal, to varying degrees have all mentioned that it's left a bitter taste in their mouth - most wanted an honest debate and consideration time about the pros and cons of it. It's been hovering on the edges as a possibility since the Republicans have controlled the Legislature and the Executive branches, but the speed at which this went through may have pissed off more people than they intended. Of course, the unions will be crippled in their ability to use that to fight against it, but, you know, whatever.

LordJiro: You'd better pray unions don't disappear. Unless, of course, you thought the Industrial revolution seemed like a fun time. Or maybe you read about feudal Europe, and thought being a serf sounded awesome? Maybe it's simpler...you just look at China, and say "Hey, I want to work there, but immigrating is too much of a pain in the ass!"Because if the unions go, big business will have no opposition in this country. And all the progress we've made will be rolled back in no time.

--------------------------

And they're not wasting any time. The speed with which they are knocking down labor law that many Americans fought and died for is scary.

StreetlightInTheGhetto:I think Snyder will probably win a second term (kinda felt that way anyway, and Lessenberry has pushed me more firmly in that camp) but before this crap I was the devil's advocate with my coworker that hated him. Yeah, he did sign some crappy legislation, yeah, I can see how you don't agree with this or that. But compared to Walker (or Engler, for that matter) he was okay and not blatantly bought out. Plus he fought against Matty Moroun, which gave Synder an incredible amount of goodwill in my book.

Which is now gone. It would have been different if he hadn't been - not anti Right To Work, but pro Let's Not Pass Right To Work And Work To Unite The State Instead - for a long while. Whatever reasons he's given for the about-face, absolutely none of them so far have won me over.

And if the Republicans were dead set on passing this and Snyder for whatever reason had changed his opinion and felt it was important, or maybe felt that he couldn't stop the momentum so might as well sign it, there were far better ways to do it. People I know who were iffy on whether Right To Work was a good thing or not are still blown away by how quickly and not-above-board it was passed here. And the (eh, five or so) I've talked to since it was a done deal, to varying degrees have all mentioned that it's left a bitter taste in their mouth - most wanted an honest debate and consideration time about the pros and cons of it. It's been hovering on the edges as a possibility since the Republicans have controlled the Legislature and the Executive branches, but the speed at which this went through may have pissed off more people than they intended. Of course, the unions will be crippled in their ability to use that to fight against it, but, you know, whatever.

And that is the REAL point of right-to-work, in a nutshell. Republicans want to hurt unions. Unions (with a few exceptions) tend to back Democrats, and they stand in the way of executives who want to fark over the workers for profit.

The base are merely greedy; they want the benefits of a union without sacrificing anything. But they're shortsighted and/or ignorant; they don't realize what life was like before strong labor unions, and/or they don't realize how fast things will snap back if/when unions are sufficiently weakened.

LordJiro:Because if the unions go, big business will have no opposition in this country. And all the progress we've made will be rolled back in no time.

It's been on the path for awhile, honestly. Granted, I'm not the happiest with the larger unions, haven't been for quite some time (although the smaller ones I've interacted with I've generally always come away with a positive experience). But they've been desperately clinging to the side of the boat to keep from drowning for awhile. And it's quite easy to see how workers have already been suffering because of it - I can't count the number of people I've met working incredibly insane hours for the privilege of not losing their job.

Contrast this to America's Hat:

Of course, motherf--king health care isn't an issue on the negotiating table for Canadian unions.

Insatiable Jesus:And they're not wasting any time. The speed with which they are knocking down labor law that many Americans fought and died for is scary.

They know they only have a narrow window of opportunity. 2010 not only gave them a strong foothold in the Rust Belt but also let them gerrymander the fark out of congressional and state districts. They already see the public turning against them, so they are going to ram through as much bullshiat as they can. Rachel Maddow was talking today about how Snyder was praising a "telemedicine" law that was passed in Michigan a few years ago. Now, the state GOP is trying to force through a law banning telemedicine for state abortion clinics.

The GOP doesn't give a fark about democracy. All of this - Citizen's United, voter ID laws, anti-abortion laws, assaults on ACORN and Planned Parenthood - is nothing more than a naked power grab on a scale that I haven't seen in my lifetime.

LordJiro:StreetlightInTheGhetto: I think Snyder will probably win a second term (kinda felt that way anyway, and Lessenberry has pushed me more firmly in that camp) but before this crap I was the devil's advocate with my coworker that hated him. Yeah, he did sign some crappy legislation, yeah, I can see how you don't agree with this or that. But compared to Walker (or Engler, for that matter) he was okay and not blatantly bought out. Plus he fought against Matty Moroun, which gave Synder an incredible amount of goodwill in my book.

Which is now gone. It would have been different if he hadn't been - not anti Right To Work, but pro Let's Not Pass Right To Work And Work To Unite The State Instead - for a long while. Whatever reasons he's given for the about-face, absolutely none of them so far have won me over.

And if the Republicans were dead set on passing this and Snyder for whatever reason had changed his opinion and felt it was important, or maybe felt that he couldn't stop the momentum so might as well sign it, there were far better ways to do it. People I know who were iffy on whether Right To Work was a good thing or not are still blown away by how quickly and not-above-board it was passed here. And the (eh, five or so) I've talked to since it was a done deal, to varying degrees have all mentioned that it's left a bitter taste in their mouth - most wanted an honest debate and consideration time about the pros and cons of it. It's been hovering on the edges as a possibility since the Republicans have controlled the Legislature and the Executive branches, but the speed at which this went through may have pissed off more people than they intended. Of course, the unions will be crippled in their ability to use that to fight against it, but, you know, whatever.

And that is the REAL point of right-to-work, in a nutshell. Republicans want to hurt unions. Unions (with a few exceptions) tend to back Democrats, and they stand in the way of executives who want to fark o ...

Destroying unions may be the hill Republicans choose to fight and die on. It has nothing to do with wages, or benefits, or people, or jobs, or anything like that. It's the Republicans trying to eliminate the main revenue stream to Democrats. Nothing more than that.

LordJiro:And that is the REAL point of right-to-work, in a nutshell. Republicans want to hurt unions. Unions (with a few exceptions) tend to back Democrats, and they stand in the way of executives who want to fark over the workers for profit.

The base are merely greedy; they want the benefits of a union without sacrificing anything. But they're shortsighted and/or ignorant; they don't realize what life was like before strong labor unions, and/or they don't realize how fast things will snap back if/when unions are sufficiently weakened.

It's ok, we have LAWS now. It's not like we have to fight to keep them or anything.

Notabunny:Destroying unions may be the hill Republicans choose to fight and die on. It has nothing to do with wages, or benefits, or people, or jobs, or anything like that. It's the Republicans trying to eliminate the main revenue stream to Democrats. Nothing more than that.

No, that's just a benefit. It's about removing all barriers to profit for the wealthy business owners. Pretty much every aspect of Republican ideology boils down to that.

LordJiro:And that is the REAL point of right-to-work, in a nutshell. Republicans want to hurt unions. Unions (with a few exceptions) tend to back Democrats, and they stand in the way of executives who want to fark over the workers for profit.

The base are merely greedy; they want the benefits of a union without sacrificing anything. But they're shortsighted and/or ignorant; they don't realize what life was like before strong labor unions, and/or they don't realize how fast things will snap back if/when unions are sufficiently weakened.

This is a big problem in our society in general. Hell, just look at our infrastructure (especially non visible infrastructure like sewer lines). Plan ahead for the future, ha.

I've been in exactly one union in my life, and I've been working since I was 14, constantly since I was 18. But I have the benefit of knowing my family's (admittedly pretty short) history in the USA, and I have pictures of the fantastic worker protections my grandfather had while building skyscrapers in Detroit (yeah, we have 'em) in the 20s.

That said, the larger unions especially haven't been doing a very good job at PR or organizing (either of their members, potential members, or the public in general toward their viewpoints). It wasn't great in 08, and it isn't that great now although there have been some strides. I'll be the first to admit when unions just don't work - I've seen it firsthand. Like any hierarchy, bubble of yes men and being large enough to miss the day to day concerns of your population. But unions "not working" are still better than absolutely no protection, which is the end game of RTW.

And even though when I was in a union, my rep was half a country away (long story) and overworked to the point we couldn't get the help we needed... the fact that I had union protection to begin with kept me from getting unjustly fired. At that job "full union" only kicked in after a year, and I saw half a dozen of my coworkers let go for completely BS reasons (blatantly so) with no recourse because the management had a vendetta. I got to leave on my own accord because they needed an actual reason to fire me, instead of things like "finished work a half hour early and skipped lunch anyway, so bought a trainee who wasn't going to make it a hamburger during the last 15 minutes of the work day ". That was an actual 'reason' my friend got fired. A friend who was in the lowest levels of management and who tried to help us got ratted out and fired. Never proven accusations of a single inappropriate comment got another friend/coworker fired.

They made up a $3 discrepancy (yep, $3) as a reason to put me on suspension. Of course, I got a job offer an hour before and got to incredibly happily quit before that actually happened. If I hadn't had the smallest semblance of the union at my back, I would have been fired for if not a $3 discrepancy than something else even stupider weeks or months before. They fired other people who didn't for far less.

Mentat:Notabunny: Destroying unions may be the hill Republicans choose to fight and die on. It has nothing to do with wages, or benefits, or people, or jobs, or anything like that. It's the Republicans trying to eliminate the main revenue stream to Democrats. Nothing more than that.

No, that's just a benefit. It's about removing all barriers to profit for the wealthy business owners. Pretty much every aspect of Republican ideology boils down to that.

From what I heard, it took some prodding, but eventually Henry Ford realized that paying his workers enough where they could afford the cars they were building was a good thing. Apparently that sort of "long term" thinking is now unheard of.

StreetlightInTheGhetto:Mentat: Notabunny: Destroying unions may be the hill Republicans choose to fight and die on. It has nothing to do with wages, or benefits, or people, or jobs, or anything like that. It's the Republicans trying to eliminate the main revenue stream to Democrats. Nothing more than that.

No, that's just a benefit. It's about removing all barriers to profit for the wealthy business owners. Pretty much every aspect of Republican ideology boils down to that.

From what I heard, it took some prodding, but eventually Henry Ford realized that paying his workers enough where they could afford the cars they were building was a good thing. Apparently that sort of "long term" thinking is now unheard of.

Median wages have been stagnate since the late 1970s. There has definitely been some long-term thinking at play.

Mentat: The GOP doesn't give a fark about democracy. All of this - Citizen's United, voter ID laws, anti-abortion laws, assaults on ACORN and Planned Parenthood - is nothing more than a naked power grab on a scale that I haven't seen in my lifetime.

---------------------------------

It makes it hard, watching what they will do when they can get away with it in public, just how random events like the high oil prices of the 2000s, the Wall St. collapse and the banking crisis really were.

If they are showing themselves to be evil in public now, what the hell have they been up to in private?

It just sounds like them to see that McCain/Palin was going down hard and pull the plug on the economy so the next guy gets blamed. These disaster capitalists thrive on chaos and uncertainty anyways anymore, there was no downshot in it, only more money. Just like 9/11, the recession gives them mountains of factually bankrupt rhetoric and bumper sticker fodder to ram home anything they want. And all they have to tell their base is that it is good for the economy, no more explanation needed.

And you just watch, in ten years, when the smoke is cleared, I'll bet you have trouble finding many people who will admit to having supported these anti-American corporate goons.

So...they ARE vital. For keeping the poors in line. Hey, a guy who is driving a million-dollar Ferrari could give a fark about a $200 traffic ticket. But the poor guy? Well, that WAS his grocery budget for the month...

Notabunny: Median wages have been stagnate since the late 1970s. There has definitely been some long-term thinking at play.

----------------------------------------

Yeah, it's called Globalism. A New World Order.

They sold it as bringing the rest of the world up to our level, lol. Instead, evidently, they are having us meet the Chinese halfway - standard of living wise. They don't give a rat's ass about how the average American lives, their money owes allegiance to no flag. One big, homogenous market of iPhone consumers is just fine by them.

Absolut Height Advantage:It's the same reason the state police union was the only union exempt in Wisconsin's dismantling of collective bargaining: IN CASE OF PUBLIC UPRISING, THE RICH ARE STILL PROTECTED BY THE POLICE THEY ESSENTIALLY PURCHASED, and I guess in this case they also wanted the fires set to their homes by the lynch mobs put out

Fun fact: they donate almost exclusively to Republican politicians. And they have better gear than the cops.

American public school teachers suck. We pay more per student on k-12 public schools and our reward is the world's most stupid children. By any measure American public school teachers suck ass. When they aren't doing their job, they're sexually abusing the children of hispanics because they know that their parents fear having the INS called. Then after sexually abusing their children, they blame the parents!

/"We teachers need more money to do a job that when we fail miserably at it will then claim we can't do it because the parents suck - while we make their kids suck us off!"

I know you're a troll. But honestly, you're saying your teachers are bad, so let's kill their unions so they can't get good pay and therefore attract intelligent people to the position(some people are altruistic, but a solid pay will draw other people). Yes there are other problems with the US system, but unions aren't necessarily the problem. We have them in Canada and our schools perform quite well... I'd love to hear some educational reform policy you think would help.

China White Tea:Ant: So much for collective bargaining if people can just opt out of the union and undercut the union workers.

You're presenting this as if it were a simple binary distinction - either we can have collective bargaining, or we can have right to work, but not both. This is clearly false, since unions continue to exist in right to work states.

They lose some power, sure. Not all of it.

Is there some reason why they should have any more of a "right" to absolute collective bargaining power than any other people should have a "right" to get a job without being in their club? I'm not seeing one. It's just another group of assholes trying to control people.

When your lobbying against corporate interests you need every dollar. Ideally I agree with you, but corporations cut workers costs as much as they can, and lobby hard against worker rights - unions losing power isn't really in the US's best interest in the long run imo...

Limit corporate lobbying spending to what the unions can spend and then maybe doing this will work...

Lawnchair:Lsherm: "Special needs" need to be rethought along the German system lines.

It's hard to call that "German system" when that's what most countries do. We're the exception, not them. Outside the US and to a lesser degree Canada, there's nowhere else in the world where, past the age of 10 or 11, 70-something-IQ lifetime floor-sweepers are in the same school, let alone the same classroom (in many courses), as kids who end up getting 35s or 36s on their ACT exams.

That said, we have some societal obligation to the appropriate education of those kids too, and it's not something privatization is going to cover (it's never going to be profitable).

I don't really think separating IQ groups is that important. Canada's schools score higher than most in the world (I believe S. Korea is the best, and Canada is around 3rd or 4th). US does need to look at educational reform though, most important issue imo, maybe give some incentive to training in areas the country is missing employees (Engineers for example). Get creationism covered in the classroom. Point out the vast scientific evidence against it. Questioning scientific rigor is fine, creationism is just saying stuff that is demonstratively wrong.

Most importantly (for school's everywhere) I think we need to start thinking of ways to test critical thinking/problem solving skills rather than route memorization. I have a good memory, so I did pretty well in school - but it wasn't necessarily a good use of my time. A good memory is a great tool and can help a lot, but let's be honest, we live in a world where we can reference information quickly, we have to incorporate that into school and pull memorization out of the equation more since pertinent.

StreetlightInTheGhetto:LordJiro: Because if the unions go, big business will have no opposition in this country. And all the progress we've made will be rolled back in no time.

It's been on the path for awhile, honestly. Granted, I'm not the happiest with the larger unions, haven't been for quite some time (although the smaller ones I've interacted with I've generally always come away with a positive experience). But they've been desperately clinging to the side of the boat to keep from drowning for awhile. And it's quite easy to see how workers have already been suffering because of it - I can't count the number of people I've met working incredibly insane hours for the privilege of not losing their job.

Contrast this to America's Hat:

[www.washingtonpost.com image 769x466]

Of course, motherf--king health care isn't an issue on the negotiating table for Canadian unions.

Yeah, we agreed to national health care a long time ago, don't waste time arguing about it now. I'm okay with paying more taxes so less people die and get sick. Long term benefits = good.